Bedford WASHINGTON, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
*410 James P. Finstrom, Dallas, for appellant.
Hеnry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle and James S. Moss, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollеrs, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
OPINION
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is assault with intent to murder with malice; the punishment, fifteen (15) years.
The injured рarty, John Lemons, testified that someone who loоked like the appellant walked up to him and said, "Say man, have you got a dime?" Lemons replied thаt he did not. At this point, the assailant hit Lemons in the face with his fist. Lemons testified:
"Then when he hit me, I turned around and I hit him back and then he saidhe said that he was going to `Stab this young m____ f____.' That's what he said, he come out with the knife and we startеd fighting with the knife and he threw me up against the locker. Thе next thing I remember I had been stabbed and then he saidI can remember him saying, `Does anybody want another рiece of this knife.' I remember getting picked up by a stretcher."
Lemons testified that he was stabbed in the spine two times and that he was in the hospital nearly а month as a result of these wounds.
Dr. Martin L. Lazar testified that he treated the injured party. He found that the knife had "transgressed the bony canal that surrounds the spinal сanal" and that it had also "transgressed the covering of the spinal cord itself." Dr. Lazar removed a portion of the knife, which had broken off in Lemons' baсk, from the area of the spine, and found that the tiр of the blade was nearly four and one-half inches deep within Lemons' body. He stated that the two wounds indiсated that the knife entered the back at an almost perpendicular angle. Finally, Dr. Lazar testifiеd that this was a very serious injury and that the complicаtions which might be expected from such a wound werе paralysis or death.
Dwayne McIntosh corroborated Lemons' testimony and identified appellant as the assailant. McIntosh said that he saw apрellant "stab" Lemons, but that he could not say whether оr not the object in appellant's hand was a knife.
The intent to murder may be shown by the extent and nature оf the injuries and by the manner in which the knife was used. We hold, аs we did in Smith v. State,
"From the manner in which the knife was used, the jury was warranted in finding an intention to take life."
In his second grоund of error, appellant urges this Court to hold that the failure of the trial court to submit a charge on thе law of circumstantial evidence *411 was fundamental error. No objection to the charge or request for a charge on circumstantial evidenсe was presented to the trial court.
"In the absеnce of an objection, no error is refleсted in the Court's failure to charge on the law of circumstantial evidence. Castanuela v. State, 171 Tеx.Cr. R. 173,346 S.W.2d 332 ." Hart v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,455 S.W.2d 237 , 238.
Additionally, it appears that no charge on circumstantial evidence was required, as the main facts were proven by direct evidence. Clayton v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
ODOM, J., not participating.